An observation

[subplotkudzu]

4E has now been out for nearly a week, and so far I have one, count them one, comment from anyone on my Friends list about it - drcpunk's comment on how the book lays flat while reading it and she's happy the 3E faux-notebook visual design is gone. 

Is everyone as ambivalent about this new system as I am? Did anyone even buy it? Where's the love, people? Or the hate, for that matter?

Comments

[mneme]

I think the idea is that a first level wizard should need about as many hits to fall over as a 23rd level wiz -- so the 23hp are supposed to last longer. And, of course, in a way, attacks -do- do a lot more damage at first level; monsters typically have more HP and do less damage than PCs, but a fighter can lead off with their daily if they want, for, say, 6d6+4 damage if it hits (3w with a greataxe).

Fighter vs Fighter fencing -- ignoring the Str vs Dex question (fighters are always Str based; if you want Dex melee attacks, you need a rogue or to make up your own class), it would be a bit sluggy -- fighters are sticky, and good at punishing opponents for moving, but aren't so good at getting away from sticky opponents themselves. So barring special abilities like an Eladrin's teleport, they'd probably go to melee range and stay there.

They avoided twidly options like total defense and attack defensively, so that option's not there. OTOH, they put the options back, to an extent, in the form of powers -- a 1st level non-human fighter (a human would have one more at-will) would have 2 at-wills, which could be cleave (not useful in a duel), reaping strike (does some damage even on a miss; could be interesting), sure strike (does less damage, but hits more often), or tide of iron (must be using a shield (could be a buckler), normal damage + pushes the target if they're not too much larger than you)), one encounter ability (two that just do normal per-encounter damage + work against/with a group; one that does less damage (as much as an at-will) but knocks the target down, one that does normal per-encounter damage and makes the target slowed (only slows movement), plus a daily (3 choices: one does lots of damage and is reliable (only used up if it hits), another reliable one that does per-encounter level damage and lets you spend a healing surge (heal 1/4 your maximum hp, if you have surges left), and one that does per-encounter damage, is -not- reliable -- but gives you +2 to to hit and +4 to damage for the remainder of the combat, and half that if it misses). (normal damage: weapon + stat. Encounter: weapon x 2 + stat. Daily: w * 3 + stat).

So, if it were to first blood, I'd expect whichever fighter had sure strike to have a signficiant advantage, but not an overpowering one (a +2 is a +2). OTOH, if it were to bloodied (and in 4e, bloodied -- half damage -- is an obvious condition that everyone can see), the dailies might come into play--the third one would be hugely telling if it hit, whereas the others -would- eventually hit.

If it's to unconciousness or death, things get interesting -- level 2 would bring in utilities (like one that gives you, 1/day, regen of 2 + your con for as long as you're bloodied). And at that point, potions would be fair game--and in 4e, drinking a healing potion cost a healing surge (so no unlimited potions), but is a minor (=swift) action. So fighters who were locked in combat and down hp could spend their move and minor actions to drink two potions and keep fighting.

For fencers fighters, level 3 would be where things realy got interesting, as it has the first set of per-weapon abilities. Including, for those wielding light blades (like a rapier), armor piercing thrust (str vs -reflex-, 1w, and if you're using a light blade or spear, add dex bonus to to-hit and damage), precise thrust (str+4 vs ac, 1w, hmm. usually not the best option given the others available...except that it's not weapon-restricted), and Rain of blows (make -two- attacks vs AC, but only if you have Dex 15+ and are wielding a light blade, a flail, or a spear).